User talk:Gyrobo/Archive 5

Empire of Brazil

Although you had no obligation, you kept a close eye for the entire nomination (even after your review) and helped us many times. I have no words to tell you how much I appreaciated what you did. Thank you very much for everything. I mean it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a really nice article and I think it's exactly the kind of material that deserves to be featured. Some topics are just so expansive that you can't limit the size without losing comprehensiveness.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rosendale Village, New York

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For outstanding work on Rosendale Village, New York and proving that we could easily have good articles on the smallest of US settlements. Your work writing articles like this is extremely well appreciated. Please continue to develop others in the same way! Good luck with the GA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Gyrobo (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GA for Rosendale Village, New York

I have reviewed this article and placed it on hold. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Gyrobo. You have new messages at Rosendale Village, New York's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Station page moves

Why did you move these articles? They are already using endashes, you're making them unspaced, which is not what is used in other station articles, such as Times Square – 42nd Street (New York City Subway).

• Middletown–Town of Wallkill (Metro-North station)
• Salisbury Mills–Cornwall (Metro-North station)
• Harlem Valley–Wingdale (Metro-North station)

The others you moved are supposed to use endashes, I've moved them to be spaced. Please revert the 3 above.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, but as I said on your talk page, I was told this violates MOS:ENDASH. I don't think it's a problem, though, if the station titles are consistent.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TCO (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

An extra pair of eyes on this one would be appreciated

Hello, Gyrobo! Since I enjoyed a lot your exceptional and careful review of Empire of Brazil, I was wondering if you could take a look at Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil? Don't worry about its size, unlike Empire of Brazil this article is very small and I don't believe you should have much trouble reading it. I would really like to see you taking a look at it and helping me improve its prose. If you're not interested, don't mind. But if you are, the nomination page is here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I will definitely get to this sometime today.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, I believe we made almost all changes you suggested in the article. Once you've got some time, please tell us what you think of it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Astynax made a few corrections there and some comments you might want to take a look. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Thanks for your comments at the Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil FAC. I have implemented most of your suggestions. In a few cases, neither the original nor suggested wording seemed to convey the meaning very well, and I've reworded a bit differently. Go ahead and change those yourself, if they still seem too awkward. I will leave a comment on the FAC talk regarding 1 or 2 other things that may or may not be a problem. • Astynax ^talk 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

HV portal

Wow... I'm really amazed at what you've done for the HV portal. AFAIK, it's one of the most "full" portals on Wikipedia in terms of the number of content selections, which is quite the accomplishment for our little area here. :) I think the more images the better, so here are some of my personal bests, which you might want to look through to see if any are worth adding.

• 
  Balloon festival in PK
• 
  Fishing on the Hudson
• 
  Christmas lights in Millbrook
• 
  USCGC from the Walkway
• 
  Esopus Creek
• 
  Fall foliage in Highland
• 
  Renegades game
• 
  Balloon festival again

Let me know what you think. Juliancolton (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I added them all. The description of that Renegades image gives the location as Wappingers Falls, but Dutchess Stadium says its in Fishkill. You might want to change one of those, I've never been there myself. If you have any more images, just keep 'em coming. And if you have some info on Thunder Bay, USCG Bay class icebreaking tug redlinked it. Might be worth an infobox and a DYK (a crop of your photo would probably scale well to 100x100px). --Gyrobo (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment discussion

Thank you for warning me about the discussion. I agree 100% with you. Although I didn't like Nikkimaria's insinuation that I was trying to force an ending to discussion. This editor declined to tell me and the other nominator what he/she saw in the article that is wrong or that could be improved. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to get input from as many parties as possible, because I think the role of nominators in this process is very poorly defined. If you know other editors who might have insights on this, please invite them to participate. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are very few editors who regularly nominate articles. I hardly believe that the editors in charge of the FAC nominations will accept your suggestion, although it it's quite obviously a very good one that would certainly turn a mess into an orderly nomination. --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosendale Village

Thanks for the update. No problem about space, as far as I know. If you want to leave it up, you might snag some more reviewer comments (from additional reviewers, I mean); it sometimes happens. Finetooth (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if it happens. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Layout engines

A tag has been placed on Template:Layout engines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. mabdul 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for putting those Church pictures in the list. I wasn't sure when I would have time to order them correctly. Appreciate it. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you upload more of them, I'd be happy to put them in. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm a fan of Church, and will keep an eye out. It's nice when one can find good versions of paintings online. The luminist works translate nicely when a good version is available. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

La Stazione reply

Hi, I think I answered your questions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Stazione/archive1#SilkTork. If you feel that your issues have been resolved, please indicate an unambiguous support. I'm sorry if this comes off as curt, but the nomination has been open for two months and I believe that if the reviewers don't specify their level of support, it may be archived at this point. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is ongoing discussion and article development then a FAC generally stays open as far as I'm aware, but I'm not a FAC regular. I did not intend to either support or oppose - I was on the FAC page for another reason and the depot discussion caught my eye. Since commenting on that particular FAC some aspects of the article have caught my attention. I don't think it is FA quality at the moment, and to be honest, I would ask for more development if I was doing the GA review. I suggest a little more research and development, building up the lead per WP:Lead and some copyediting would improve the article. Good luck with getting to FA. SilkTork *^YES! 22:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on La Stazione.

You definitely deserved this one. upstateNYer 14:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Rosendale trestle.

Jeez, this too! upstateNYer 14:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually hoping they'd get promoted at the same time. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Four count

I trust your script more than my fingers and toes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. I thought for a while that I forgot to subtract somewhere, because the difference was one (and also because I slapped it together right before lunch), but I just looked it over and the script looks good. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Is your code counting both the image in the header row and the wikipedia globe image on the page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The script searches all images in the page, but only increments the counter when it finds File:Four Award.svg. Then it decrements because of the header image. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Rail trail FAC

Hi Gyrobo. I looked at the ongoing FAC discussion just now, and I think I'll stay out of it. Two different editors have opposed on similar grounds, and the mention of the peer review seems tangential to the main issues. My advice would be to take the reviewers' advice about the MoS questions unless you have strong grounds for disagreement. The MoS issues are usually not terribly hard to fix. Finetooth (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I came late to this one too. I honestly didn't see anyone claiming explicitly that you hadn't fully addressed the issues I brought up in A-Class review, but it seems they are mentioning the same ones. And they're right.

My quick suggestions for some of the things you could fix: you don't need all those "sights" in the infobox, most of which aren't actually on the trail itself (save the Rosendale trestle). I don't think you need so much in "hazards" ... I suspect that's in the trail infobox for more serious things like hypothermia on the Crawford Path, or difficult river crossings or steep fall-inducing sections like the trails up the Maroon Bells). That would help you address the image sandwiching in the first section.

You also still have the problems suggested by the WP:CITEBUNDLE link. And Truthkeeper is also right about "that sentence with so many numbers". Be mindful of summary style in intros ... it's a too-frequently–overlooked guideline. I try to use only those numbers most germane to the subject (i.e., in this case, the trail's overall length), and leave the rest for the body text. It would be easier on the reader simply to say that a 2009 addition effectively doubled that. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with the date styles

Hello, Gyrobo. I don't care about date styles in Wikipedia as much as I did previously. So, please feel free to fix them; I don't care as long as no other issue is involved.

I think I had a historic discussion about this issue with another user but I don't remember who. (I must have deliberately chosen to forget at the eve of the new year.) The important thing however is that the discussion ended without any results. So, have fun editing. Fleet Command (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Articles

Congratulations on your two new featured articles. I have not seen such a rapid move from article creation to FA status before. It was fun to be a part of it. Racepacket (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I certainly appreciate your help. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Harriman refs

Looks good. :) - I just tossed that reference as the book is no longer in my collection and found a new article from the Milwaukee Journal which is sufficient.Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 23:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD notice for Internet Explorer 10

Bling! Bling! Your controversial edit in Internet Explorer 10 is reverted, per WP:BRD. A talk page entry is opened. Fleet Command (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on User talk:FleetCommand#Dates in Internet Explorer 10 and Talk:Internet Explorer 10#Date format — again, and I'll add here that BRD is an essay, not a policy, and your use of it to block any changes you disagree with is inappropriate. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And now you are engaged in edit warring. "Only an essay" is not a good reason. The fact is: No consensus is reached. Fleet Command (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I've been trying to tell you; you frequently present essays as authoritative, and distort the meaning of both essays and policies. A single revert, done in good faith after my reasons were described in earnest on the article's talk page, does not constitute edit warring. If you continue to make accusations and distort policy, you're just going to end up alienating the editors who could have helped you improve the articles you care about. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We will deal with this issue later. Currently, I have asked Mediation Cabal to help with dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. Once the date issue is resolved, we sit together in this lovely and cozy talk page of yours and discuss my use of policy. Fleet Command (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we please continue this discussion there? I don't really like to divide substantive discussions across talk pages. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gyrobo. You have new messages at Talk:Internet Explorer 10.
Message added 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you don't reply we will revert. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded, and I'm sorry that my dispute with FleetCommand's tenor has spilled out onto this article's talk page. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

MedCab case

I've completed my observations, you can see them here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:46pm • 02:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to resolve this dispute. Have a good one. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help. If you find anything unsatisfactory, please drop me a line. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:19pm • 04:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, having looked through a lot of the diffs from before and after those which you recently provided I can see that you are correct. I've summarised that in a latter section. Cheers, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:43pm • 03:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and if it were earlier in the day, I'd come up with a good self-deprecating comment right here to help laugh it off. Imagine that I have done so. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the case as the original dispute has been resolved. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:49am • 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, I'm glad that this is finally over. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is over. In fact I am sure you didn't sign "I agree" under the final consensus draft. But I am willing to re-suggest an alternative (for the third time over this year): You can go ahead and do whatever you love with dates in Wikipedia, even if it is not okay with the policy. I don't care, so long as you don't want me to be not okay. Leave me alone and I will your edits alone. On my part, this suggestion is effective now. Fleet Command (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're arguing. What part of the discussion do you disagree with? --Gyrobo (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am offering you both peace and Carte Blanche. Indefinite and unconditional. That's what you have been fighting and edit-fighting for, right? Well, it is yours. All you have to do is not to deny yourself of it. Now, if you excuse me, I have to catch up with my friend. He is about to tell me something funny. When he finished, I am going to ask him if he is dumb or if he is just playing dumb. As always, he is going to laugh and tell me that is smarter than me nonetheless. I am also going to laugh and ask him where is his source. Then both of us will laugh like silly girls. Fleet Command (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Hi, Gyrobo. I wanted to let you know that Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil is now a Featured Article. You did a wonderful review back there that certainly helped (a lot) improve the article. I'm and truly grateful for that. I must confess that I considered inviting you to join the team and work on another articles related to Brazil's imperial history (if you had the interest, of course), but I had some serious issues with another editor at the end of the FAC process that made me realize that my time could be expended in other far better ways than here. Nonetheless, I thought you deserved to know that I regard you as a valuable editor and one that could do a great work. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! If you ever have another article that you'd like me to review, I'd be happy to help. I don't know much about Brazil, but I do enjoy reading about it. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! It is taking awhile reading the articles you and others have been busy working on while I was gone. Great work! Impressed greatly. Look forward to learning more interesting facts added to articles.Camelbinky (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at P:HUDSON, it's shaping up pretty nicely. There's some overlap with Capital District content, but the boundary between the CD and upper HV are pretty fluid, I think. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could team up and do the same for P:NYCD as you did for P:HUDSON. upstateNYer 01:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest thing holding the CD portal back is that while there is a lot of great CD content, there aren't a lot of pages at GA or higher. We need to take more articles through GAN, and consider starting a formal A-Class review system for NY articles. WP:ACLASS says we need at least two uninvolved editors for that, but we should probably try to get as much input as possible. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good call. We also lack good biographies. Seems I take on the bigger projects though. The state, the senator, the city... I need to jump on some smaller topics, methinks. upstateNYer 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree on the bios, and the need to create a large number of short, high-quality articles. Something like December 1969 nor'easter can be totally comprehensive without going over 20 sources. And there are a ton of road GAs that only need about 10 sources. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favor and take a look at Empire State. I realize it's short and has few sources, but after some significant searching, I've only been able to find one author that has actually tackled this topic. Milton Klien wrote both the book I cite and the entry in the Encyclopedia of New York State, which essentially duplicates his work in the book (i.e. citing the encyclopedia would be redundant as it offers no new information or insight). Quite honestly, it's about as complete as it could be and I'd like to bring it to GAN. upstateNYer 03:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I made some tweaks, it's looking really good. The lead could use some work, but I don't think there's anything that would hold up a GAN. I'll take another look tomorrow. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The immediate response from most will be 'way too short', but really, there's nothing more to report. Take an axe or a scalpel to the lead. Doesn't bother me. Thanks! upstateNYer 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead says that it's the official nickname, but I don't see anything about when the state made it official. Should it be shortened to just "nickname"? And, ref 2 only appears in the lead, might be best to move it to the body. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

Hi, Gyrobo! I was wondering if you would have the interest of taking a look at one of my old Featured Articles, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. I believe the text could be improved and you've proven yourself to be one excelent reviewer. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look. I'll review it sometime in the next day or so, and leave comments on the article's talk page. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just an update, I've been doing some offline work, but I'm going to try to get this review done over the weekend. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Gyrobo - I just wanted to clarify that I never accused you of anything, neither here or off-wiki. It was very clear from my talk page and userpage activities that I was having a problem, and it would have been easy to find. I didn't want to post the Twitter post on AN/I because I didn't think it was necessary and as it happened someone else found it. At any rate, based on recent posts to the thread on AN/I, it seems that some still think I might harass you - so I'm here to let you know that won't happen, and hasn't happened. Obviously it was a huge misunderstanding. I would, however, in the future advise you to stay away from AN/I. Had you come directly to me, I would have explained. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I don't have anything against you or Ceoil, I just didn't know the proper place to seek mediation for something like that. I'll avoid AN/I in the future, because it just caused unnecessary escalation. The discussion did get your Twitter thing got cleared up, and nobody is blocked. That's probably the best outcome. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Church paintings

Left you a few examples at User_talk:Keraunoscopia#Church_paintings. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been rushing around this last week and completely forgot I asked you this. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem! : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joppenbergh Mountain

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)